7 Fixes for a Market Failure
Only when the tide goes out do we find out who has been swimming without a bathing suit. The turmoil in the financial world reveals that almost everybody has been skinny-dipping. Even the greatest names have been exposed to humiliation—and a number of them have made an ignominious exit.
I have written about this financial crisis—using the word advisedly—often in the past months because it is so serious and misunderstood. Even now, when we haven't touched bottom, we hear that "the market" will solve all—meaning that tougher regulation by the government should be rejected. But the market won't and can't solve this problem on its own. To appreciate just why, and what must be done, we have to re-enter the casino and see what the key players have been doing with the money.
A casino, yes, because they've been gambling—but gambling with borrowed money. The financial world came to believe that cheap short-term money would always be available, so players could borrow short and make huge profits by buying higher-yielding long-term securities. One trouble was that almost no one understood just what assets anchored these long-term securities. Long-term mortgages sold as "securitized" bundles represented anything but security. They represented unknown degrees of risk between sound borrowers and unsound borrowers. Many of these bundles were ranked by rating agencies with an AAA imprimatur, which in turn attracted major investors from around the world. They all under-priced the risk. The shattering of the illusion that house prices would always rise burst that balloon.
Euphoria of leverage. How could it be that very sophisticated, clever people in finance should be so dumb? The answer is that they were caught in the euphoria of leverage. They borrowed more and more relative to the amount of equity. This was fine when values increased. Earnings boomed. The financial system became a great game of fees and speculation. The total assets of the 10 top banks in the United States and Europe nearly doubled from mid-2004 to mid-2007, mainly through leverage, at a time when the banks' capital to meet their obligations increased by only 20 percent. In 2007, 40 percent of all of America's corporate profits went to the financial services industries, whose debt, as a percentage of the nonfinancial sector, had quintupled in the last 25 years.
Just a year ago, markets were euphoric. But the lending bubbles inflated to such proportions that they burst, causing a disaster in the credit markets and revealing astonishing amounts of credit extended to even the weakest borrowers. As former Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman pointed out, "Historically, C-rated borrowers have been unable to borrow much from public debt markets because over decades more than 30 percent of such low-rated debt defaulted before maturity. In 2006, more than $25 billion of these securities were sold; the previous 10 years, the average was $2 billion." Simultaneously, the bubble in home prices burst.
The decline in values meant the leverage became a noose. Lenders worried about shrinking equity pressed borrowers to sell assets, placing further downward pressure on prices—the beginnings of a vicious circle. If a firm's portfolio is leveraged 33 to 1, it takes a drop of a mere 3 percent to wipe out its entire capital.
The result was credit defaults that hit lenders all around the world. By the time they turned off the spigot, it was, as always, too late. Hundreds of billions of dollars in credit losses have been realized; the International Monetary Fund estimates losses will approach $1 trillion. The Fed has been pouring emergency liquidity into the financial system to avert a collapse.
Much of the credit was extended to finance complex asset portfolios held in a vast array of financial vehicles in a so-called shadow banking system of structured investment vehicles and conduits. Many of these were unregulated, trading in markets beyond the reach of effective oversight and supervision. This meant the firms could take on all the risks they wanted without the government saying boo, as it would have had to do with banks. The shadow banking system depended on unknown trillions of derivatives and other highly engineered financial securities. The volume of derivatives increased globally to $500 trillion by 2008. Warren Buffett described these derivatives as "weapons of mass financial destruction."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
Intelligent person but
I do have some respect for Mort because of his views on Mclaughlin group. however what I find missing in articles like these is how to increase demand for housing. one is to let the prices fall more and more till more buyers find it affordable. The other is to fix the broken immigration system and to process residency a bit faster for legal immigrants (note - I mean legals who are already in the US ..because of the broken system it takes around 8 years for them to get a green card ..after paying around 15 thousand dollars in fees - (lawyer and other)).
A Most Shameful Article
I already knew that people who wield alot of power never told people the truth, but to suggest that the Fed, which is NOT the government but a PRIVATE institution controlled by PRIVATE banks(the seven largest shareholders are not even listed!), have MORE control over markets IS JUST SHAMEFUL.
IF you do not understand how a fiat money system works vs. a hard currency system, like the gold standard, then I will explain it to you.
If I deposit gold into a bank then that bank can put out loans on said gold as long as I keep it in that bank....that bank cannot put out more loans than it has in collateral b/c it would make the bank insolvent if everyone were to pull their gold back out. In this system, credit cannot just be created and this system gives the free market more stability b/c it puts more lending and credit restrictions on a bank than could ever be put on a bank by regulations written in a book.
Fiat money systems, like the Federal Reserve, work on a credit/debit system that makes every man, woman, and child be forever in debt to the Fed b/c they print money and lend it to banks on a percentage. This credit, however, is NOT backed by any collateral and is created for banks, basically out of thin air(but is based on a complicated algorithm that includes GDP, inflation, confidence of other central banks in the growth of our economy, and many other things), to artificially stimulate investment in whatever market investors think they can make a quick buck in. This "artificial credit" that is created can only benefit the first receivers of that credit b/c they are allowed to buy credit on loan and possibly make more money then they owe....which is not always the case as is true in any "bubble" for it is this artificial creation of credit that CREATES the bubble.
So it is the LACK of a gold system that creates monetary instability b/c the banks are allowed to control the flow of money, the direction of the economy, the direction of the government, and in effect basically control the ENTIRE country.
So, in summary, you are a FRAUD and you should be ASHAMED that you had enough gall to even write your column!
Hear! Hear!
Mr. Z -
What you suggest is, in concept, like allowing the DMV to regulate the way cars are built. They are tangentially connected, but allowing a government agency more power over the free market smacks of a losing ideal.
It would be wonderful to believe that the government can swoop in and fix the problems accrued by private lenders, and individuals - but in the end, it is in the market's best interest to allow these institutions, and again - individuals - to fail. I hear tell of hard-luck stories of people being given mortgages that knew they wouldn't be able to pay back - and I wonder, who signed the documents? I know there is a lot of fine print, but in all honesty, you are signing away a majority of your income for thirty (or more) years. I would imagine someone would make the effort to understand what it is they are signing. And if they don't, and sign regardless, they should be allowed - yes, allowed - to fail, lose their home and be sent on their way. That, to the best of my knowledge, is how the mortgage industry is designed: you promise, on the collatoral of your home, to pay on time, and in full. When you don't, you forfiet your home. Just one thought.
As for the multitude of your suggestions - they sound like so much Democratic tongue whapping. If there is so much need to help, and regulate, why has the system worked as it has for so long? Why the sudden need? And why not ask wealthy Democrats - who should line up for this one - just open their pockets and help others out?
I've got 60,000 in college debt, I'll take a check.
advertisement









